Hans Petter said:
>> 3) Addressing the essence of the ad Hoc committee, i.e. discussing
how to
>> best address new addressing needs emerging for
I'll respond on the Ad Hoc Committee in a moment.
At the ARIN meeting this week Brian Carpenter presented a slightly
revised version of the presentation that Bob Hinden made at RIPE in
September. The discussion afterward was lively but what was clear was
that the IAB/IESG was doing a good job of education during their road
shows, but they weren't completely convincing their audience. I'd
observe that:
- many people have done some estimates of when IPv4 exhaustion takes
place, with many different results (depending on the algorithm used);
nobody seems to agree and it seems to affect the debate on IPv6
- many people have ideas about what pressures are emerging on
addressing -- with people already asking for conservation of IPv6 space
because of fears about what might happen in the future;
- not everyone agrees that you can successfully predict the future --
and especially the future impact of technologies that are yet to be
deployed or even imagined; and,
- some believe that IPv6 allocation should reflect a "worst case"
analysis of possible futures.
Whether the Ad Hoc committee continues past Los Angeles or not, I think
the AC should be prepared to deal with these issues. The IESG/IAB road
show has been helpful in bringing part of the discussion to some
constituencies, but the discussion should be larger than simply the
size of allocations in IPv6 to a specific class of users. The AC
should take this effort on - a "working group" if you will - that
meaningfully involved the IETF, the RIRs, traditional telephone
companies, mobile operators, ISPs and anyone else in the industry that
has a stake in the pressures that are coming on addressing.
This is a natural group to sort through the various estimates on IPv4
exhaustion (I sat at dinner and heard three different representatives
of three different companies give three different estimates -- and
swear that they were correct) and then act on the Ad Hoc Committee's
report of "drivers" of pressure on address policy. That should be the
group that takes the lead on the IPv6 discussion -- gathering input and
making a recommendation to the AC/ASO and RIRs.
At its Brisbane meeting I'd like to see the Address Council charter
such a working group and have it work in coordination with the IETF,
the RIRs, traditional telephone companies, mobile operators, and ISPs.
mark
Mark McFadden
Chief Technology Officer
Commercial Internet eXchange
www.cix.org -- mcfadden at cix.org
v: (+1) 608-240-1560 f: (+1) 608-240-1562

The RIPE NCC uses cookies. Some of these cookies may have been set already. More information about our cookies can be found in our privacypolicy. You can accept our cookies either by clicking here or by continuing to use the site.